Terrorism

Ok so some shitty ass obscure tyranny pisses off some of it's citizens and we happen to buy oil from them so they decide to murder some of our civilians.

We retaliate and the terrorists say "THEY ARE AT WAR WITH US NOW".

We do nothing and the terrorists say "THEY ARE WEAK, WE CAN DO WHATEVER WE WANT!".

If you hate america and love terrorists, even by taking the terrorist's side it is obvious that there is nothing we can do to stop them attacking us. So we must retaliate. Therefore the war to defend Iraqi and Afghanistani civilians from terrorism was the correct course of action.

Problems:

1. There are more than two potential courses of action. Ignoring them and declaring that you must only take one of two actions you supply is fallacious.

2. You provide no criteria for what determines an action to be "correct". What goals must be met? What outcome must be achieved?

3. There is no connection between your postulate and your conclusion. You provide no evidence to support the notion that the two wars you cite have satisfied the as-yet indeterminate criteria for "correctness" from your postulate.

Frankly, this was one of the least coherent and logical arguments in support of these two wars I've ever seen.